Background: There were four Defendants. Ernesto Miranda was the first Defendant who was an immigrant. Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. The officers didn’t read him his rights, he then signed a paper stating he was read his rights.
Questions: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Decisions: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution couldn’t introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his right of an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Significance: There was no evidence that any defendant was notified of their 5th Amendment constitutional right. The U.S Supreme Court consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogation.
United States v Windsor – Autumn Elliott – Extra Credit
Background: In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act, states that for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Some states have same-sex marriage. Windsor is a widow. In 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
Questions: Does the executive branch’s agreement with the lower court that the act is unconstitutional deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case?
Does the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives have standing in the case?
Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?
Decisions: The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Significance: The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couple the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage which is available to other couples with legal marriages
Background: William Henry Furman was robbing a house when a resident of the home caught him. Furman tried running, but he tripped and fell. His gun went off when he fell and killed the resident of the home. William was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Question: Does the imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 16th amendment?
Decision: The death penalty was found to be unconstitutional for unintentional murder.
Significance: The case didn't completely abolish the death penalty, but it placed less flexible requirements on death penalty statutes.
Tinker v Des Moines: Students freedom of speech and symbolic speech rights in school was addressed in this case. Iowa students wore black armband to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The parents sued the school for violating the first amendment. They lost in both the US district court and the court of appeals. On February in 1969, the US Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of the students quoting, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."
Mapp V Ohio: Police forced their way into Mapp's house with no search warrant in 1961. They thought she was holding a bombing suspect. While searching her house, they found no suspect, but a trunk of obscene photos. Mapp was arrested for the photos. Mapp appealed and said her fourth amendment rights were violated. The US Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of Mapp saying the evidence was seized unlawfully, and therefore, could not be used in criminal prosecutions. This case forced states to enforce protection against unreasonable search and seizures.
Background: John Barron sued the city of Baltimore for dumping sand in and around the Wharf he owned, ruining his business. He won his case for $4,500 in damages, but the federal court reversed the decision, bringing the case to the Supreme Court.
Question: Does the 5th amendment restrict the power of the state government as well as the nation?
Decision: No, the nation is the only one restricted by the Bill of Rights.
Significance: The Supreme Court established that the Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the nation, giving the states more implied freedom.
Background: 3 Amish children were prosecuted under Wisconsin's Compulsory School Attendance Law that requires all children to attend public school until the age of 16. The parents refused to send their children to school after the eighth grade due to religious preferences.
Question: Does this violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of the parents?
Decision: It was unanimous, and it upheld the First Amendment.
Significance: Parent's fundamental right to the freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating its children.
Background: Gideon was charged in Florida with a felony. He went to court without a lawyer, and was denied one of his request. He represented himself and was found guilty. He filed a habeas corpus in Florida Supreme Court, but it was denied.
Question: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a criminal case extend to felony defendants in state courts?
Decision: 9-0 Majority in favor of Gideon. The amendment was upheld.
Significance: Requires states to appoint attorneys to those who can not get one.
Background: When the police were called to, and entered a private residence (John Lawrence’s apartment) because of a report of a supposed “weapons disturbance”, they found Lawrence with another man (Tyron Garner, whom was an adult) intimately related to one another. They were then promptly arrested convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse” because they were violating in of a Texas statute which forbids two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
Question: Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision: 6–3 Decision in the favor of Lawrence DECISION FOR LAWRENCE
Significance: It basically showed that the government has no business in our private lives because it has no interest for the state. Justice Kennedy explained this in the majority opinion: "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,"
Background: In 1988 and 1989 Pensylvania changed its abortion control law to require informed consent, a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure, the consent of one parent (if a minor), and you would have to indicate that you notified your husband of her intention to abort her fetus (if married) These changes were challenged by many abortion clinics and physicians.
Questions: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?
Decision: 5-to-4 decision for Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
Significance: This reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade made it illegal to make an "undue burden," (“substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability”) which allows women more ability to get an abortion if she chooses. However, the only “undue burden” found was the husband notification. This means that you still need your parent’s permission (if you are a minor), informed consent, and a 24 hour waiting period.
Background: Petitioner was McCulloch while the Respondent was the state of Maryland. The case was decided on March 6, 1819, but argued nine different dates beginning on February 22, 1819. In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax which led the case to end up in the Supreme Court
Important Questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Decision: The court unanimously held in favor of McCulloch and that Congress did have the right to incorporate the bank, but Maryland did not have the right to tax the bank because it was an instrument of the national government according to the constitution. Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to charter the second Bank of the United States
Significance: The United States government had implied powers as well as those specifically listed in the Constitution. The decision provided the pathway for the federal government to expand and evolve through time.
Background: In the year of 1878, the case of George Reynolds was brought to the Supreme Court. Reynolds had his first wife, Mary Ann Tuddenham, but then married a second wife, Amelia Jane Schofield, while his first was still present. Law had prevented acts such as this from happening, saying they would be guilty of biamy and could be fined up to $500 or imprisoned for up to five years. Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which Reynolds used to argue that his religion required him to have multiple wives.
Questions: How far does freedom of religion go? Does the anti-bigamy law violate the first amendment because some religions practice multiple marriages?
Decision: The ruling was unanimous that the anti-bigamy law did not violate the First Amendment.
Significance: The court decided that people cannot exclude themselves from laws because of their religion.
Marbury v. Madison: 1803 Background Info: Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election. John Adams, the previous president, in his last moments in office appointed 58 members from his party into the court system (Midnight Judges). But before John Marshall, the Secretary of State, could deliver the commissions for all these jobs the new Secretary of State, James Madison, took over. 17 people did not get their commissions yet when Madison took over. James Madison was commanded by the President not to finish commissioning them because he wanted people of his own party to be in power. One of the people who did not get their job was William Marbury who was promised by Adams he would be the Justice of Peace for the District of Columbia. Marbury sued Madison on the claim that the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus for Madison to commission Marbury with the Judiciary Act of 1789 Important questions: • Should Marbury be appointed? • Dose the Supreme Court have the right to demand Marbury be commissioned? Decision: The Supreme Court voted 4-0. Four votes for Madison and 0 votes against. The Supreme Court ruled the Judiciary Act of 1798, which would have granted the Supreme Court the right to issue a writ of mandamus, unconstitutional. Therefore, even though Marbury deserved to be appointed the Supreme Court could not force him to be commissioned. Significance: This case is a classic case because it establishes the power for the Judicial Branch to exercise judicial review: deciding whether or not acts of Congress are constitutional. In this case the Judiciary Act of 1803 was declared unconstitutional. This affects most if not all future cases and has been argued to be one of the most important cases in History. Did I mention Judicial Review, well if not let me say it again? The case is significant because it established JUDICIAL REVIEW!!! Recap: Marbury v. Madison: 1803 with a decision vote of 4-0 establishes Judicial Review
Gibbons vs Ogden (1824-1826) Background- New York State law gave citizens the right to operate steamboats on waters within their jurisdiction. Other states had made a law similar to this one, which caused conflict. Thomas Gibbons was a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey with his federal coastal liscense. After New York tried to charge Gibbons for his boat privileges he challenged the monopoly liscense given to Aaron Ogden by New York.
Question- Did New York exercise authority in a realm reserved only to Congress, mostly the regulation of interstate commerce?
Decision- Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. Court held that commerce is more than traffic. It's the trade of commodities.
Significance- It takes Conress's power to regulate interstate Commerce.
Griswold vs Connecticut (1962-1965) Background- Griswold and the medical director of a planned parenthood league were arrested for violating a Connecticut Comstock law, a law prohibiting someone from using a drug, medical advice, and any medical instrument to prevent conception. These two gave their patients instructions and medical advice cerning different types of birth control and prevention of conception.
Question- Does the U.S Constitution protect marital privacy against state restrictions on couples choice of being counseled on how to prevent conception?
Decision- Supreme Court found this law, 7-2 vote, to violate the right to marital privacy. With the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments combined it creates the right to marital privacy.
Significance- Married couples now have their own privacy under the constitution.
Schenck v. United States (1919): Charles Schenck a socialist wanted to protest the draft for men to fight in World War I. He attempted to give out thousands of flyers to American servicemen who had been drafted. He seen the draft as a form of slavery and wanted his voice to be heard. He thought that this would be covered under the first amendment. But, the government charged him with violating Espionage Act. The government argued that Schenck was trying to "to cause insubordination ... in the military and naval forces of the United States." He was found guilty on all charges, the Supreme Court reviewed Schenck’s conviction appeal. They ended up siding with the US Government finding that schenck created a clear and present danger to the public during wartime. Question: The main question that was brought up about this case was: How far does the First Amendment right protect us? Where is the line drawn for what we can/cannot say? Decision: The decision as you know went with the US Government. They found that Schenck encouraging the drafted soldiers to fight it he was putting the country in clear and present danger during war time. Significance: The significance is really important in this case. We as Americans have to know how far we can use our First Amendment right. We have to know where that line stops, so we do not violate any laws.
Extra Credit: United States v. Nixon: June 1972, five men in the Democratic National Committees offices in the Watergate complex were found with cameras and bugging equipment they were all arrested. Come to find out they worked with the Committee to re-elect President Nixon. It was discovered that Nixon had a taping system that recording all of his conversations. He believed that it was executive privilege for him not to release the tapes but, the US Government fought him on that claiming that executive privilege may not be invoked to deny the courts access to evidence needed in a criminal proceeding. The United States won this case unanimously. Question: Does separation of powers give the president the right to uphold information from the other branches. Decision: The courts sided with the US Government meaning that Nixon had to release the tapes. Significance: This case is very famous and important. Everyone knows about the Watergate scandal and the ruling shows that one branch cannot shut the others out. Which is good because that means it has less of a chance to be corrupt.
Texas v. Johnson Background: Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested in 1984 for breaking a Texas State law of burning the American flag. Johnson said he was protected and had rights to do that because of the First Amendment.
Questions: What does freedom of speech mean? How far is too far?
Decision: Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Johnson's favor, stating that his actions are protected under the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.
Significance: Invalidated ban of desecrating the American flag in 48 out of 50 states.
Texas v. Johnson Background: Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested in 1984 for breaking a Texas State law of burning the American flag. Johnson said he was protected and had rights to do that because of the First Amendment.
Questions: What does freedom of speech mean? How far is too far?
Decision: Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Johnson's favor, stating that his actions are protected under the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.
Significance: Invalidated ban of desecrating the American flag in 48 out of 50 states.
Extra credit Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña Background: Conflict arose in 1989 when 2 construction companies: Adarand construction and Gonzalez construction, were biding to build guard rails along a Colorado Highway. The Department of Transportation (DOP) had just classified Gonzales co. as a disadvantaged company, so the job was awarded to Gonzalez. Adarand then filed suit against the DOT, more specific, against their secretary of Transportation, Frederico Peña. Adarand claimed that the incentive clause was unconstitutional.
Question: Does the act of favored treatment, and the assumption of disadvantaged based on race alone, violate the equal protection clause in the fifth amendment?
Decision: 5-4 in the favor of Adarand.
Significance: The government can no longer discriminate on the basis to "make up for the past" Everyone has equal chances.
Background: This is the court case that segregated public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal." It remained this way from 1896 to 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education). Colored people and white people had different schools, bathrooms, neighborhoods, train cars, water fountains, and everything. There were signs that said "whites only" or "colored people only." Homer Plessy, who was only six-eighths caucasian, refused to move to a colored car on a Louisiana train and was arrested.
Decision: 7-1 Ferguson. Things became officially segregated.
Question: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its train an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Significance: It is degrading to humans to treat them differently like your race makes you "superior" or "inferior" people.
Background: James Wesberry Jr. filed a lawsuit against Governor Carl Sanders of Georgia in 1963. He was protesting the state's apportionment scheme because the fifth congressional district (the one Wesberry was a member for) had a population three times the size of all the other districts. It "diluted his right to vote."
Decision: 6-3 decision for Wesberrq.
Question: Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?
Significance: Apportionment with large population size can easily affect party majority to make one party way stronger than the other. It also drives people away from voting because they feel like their vote won't matter anymore because it's too diluted. This is where the individual vote would begin to mean almost nothing.
New York Times v. Sullivan Background: The New York Times ran a full-page advertisement in 1960 that criticized the police department of Montgomery, Alabama, during the civil rights movement. The advertisement did not mention anyone by name, but contained incorrect information. L. B. Sullivan, who was the supervisor of Montgomery police department, believed the advertisement was indirectly criticizing him and sued the New York Times for $50,000 for libel. The New York Times, stating that they had no knowledge that the information they published was false, appealed. Question: Does the 1st Amendment protect the right of the press to criticize public officials? Decision: In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, 9-0. They decided that the 1st Amendment protects the newspaper’s right to publish the advertisement because it was not made with actual malice (The New York Times claims to have had no knowledge that there was incorrect information in the ad). Significance: The case set the precedent for the actual malice standard. This means that in libel cases, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew the statement was false and published it anyway. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Background: Allan Bakke, a 35-year old white man, applied to and was rejected from the University of California Davis Medical School twice. In an effort to increase diversity, the school reserved 16 seats in their incoming class of 100 students for minorities. Bakke claimed that his grades and test scores exceeded those of the minority students accepted both years he was rejected, and that the University was discriminating against him based on his race. Question: Does affirmative action violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbade discrimination based on race, or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Decision: The court decided 5-4 to order the University of California to admit Bakke because the reservation of 16 seats for minorities violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, they also decided that states can constitutionally use race as a factor in college admissions because classroom diversity is a compelling state interest. Significance: This case upheld affirmative action, but banned specific numerical quotas for diversity. Today, colleges and universities can legally seek to increase racial diversity through their admissions process by giving preference to minorities, but cannot reserve a specific number of seats in the class for minorities.
Engel v Vitale Backgroud: 1. The case of Engel v Vitale dealt with whether praying in schools was constitutional. The Board of Regents in New York authorized a prayer in the morning of the school day. The prayer read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.” Engel, a parent of one of the children at the school with this prayer, and some other parents thought this to be unconstitutional, even though it was undenominational and voluntary. They took the issue to the state board, who said the pray6er would be allowed. Engel did not feel that was the right answer, so he and his group were not done. They took the issue to the supreme court, and it was argued upon April 3,1962. Question: 3. The question being argued in this case was; is authorizing a nondenominational prayer in schools, a violation of the “establishment of religion” clause in the First Amendment? Decision: 4. On June 25,1962, the Supreme Court decided that prayer in school was unconstitutional, with a 6 -1 vote for Engel. The judges stated that by giving the children the option to pray with the class every morning, they were approving religion. Significance: 5. This case was significant because it reinforced the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. For our government, the unconstitutional ruling meant that they had to be more strict in enforcing this clause. It also gave people the absolute freedom of religion. Parents would not have to worry about their kids learning about some sort of religion they wouldn’t necessarily want their child learning. There were other cases based on the First Amendment rights such as Bethel School District #43 v Fraser. Despite the vote not being very popular among the American people, there were no amendments to overrule this Supreme Court ruling.
Wolf v Colorado - extra credit Background: The case of Wolf v Colorado dealt with whether illegally seized evidence should be required to be excluded from trial. Wolf and two others were convicted for planning to perform criminal abortions. While on trial, Wolf objected to the evidence and claimed it would be irrelevant if he were tried separately from his colleagues, due to the Illegal Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. This case was argued on October 19, 1948. Question: The question at hand with this case was; are states required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to dismiss illegally seized evidence from trial? Decision: On June 27, 1949, the Supreme Court decided with a 6 – 3 vote, that according to both amendments in question, the evidence would not have to be excluded. The judges said that although this would be a great way to deter illegal search and seizure, there are other better ways to do so. Significance: This case clarified what you could and could not do according to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Also it made it clear that there are other ways to comply with the constitution other than letting someone guilty walk free based on where the evidence came from and how to police got it. Another case based on a similar issue overruled this ruling in 1961. This case was Mapp v Ohio.
Case: Buckley v Valeo Background: Case was argued in 1975 over the argument that setting a limit on campaign contributions was against the first amendment. The federal election committee was created to regulate this to prevent corruption in campaigns after the watergate scandal. Question: did the limits set on electoral expenditures by the FECA of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment? Decision: Court ruled in favor of Buckley, saying that restricting an individual or their family's contributions is against the first amendment. Significance: Buckley set the odds for the United States and showed that a citizen's voice is important and the core of freedom of expression isn't spending money.
Gitlow v. New York Background: This case was following the red scare of 1920. Leftists, as in anarchists, socialists, members of socialist parties, etc. were convicted on the basis of writings or statements.Gitlow was punished for publishing a left wing manifesto in the newspaper.
The whole big deal was that at first it was believed that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the laws that the states enforced. However, the Supreme Courts overturned this and now the Bill of Rights applies just as much to the states as it does to federal government. Gitlow’s conviction was upheld on the grounds that the government may suppress or punish speech that directly advocated violence and unlawful overthrowing of the government. How I would decide is not based on my own beliefs, but rather the federalist papers, which say that the Constitution’s foundation is to protect the government from monarchy and anarchy. Now overthrowing the government may put it into the anarcho-syndicalist spectrum or a socialist spectrum. However, the act of violently overthrowing the government during that time would cause anarchy in that moment. That is what Benjamin Gitlow is being convicted of by publishing his manifesto, The controversy here isn’t the Supreme Court ruling of Gitlow v. New York, but the fact that they overturned a previous ruling in which the Constitution only extended to federal law. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 upholding Gitlow's conviction. Questions: Q: What era was this? A: Post red scare (late 1910’s early 1920’s). Q: What was the decision A: 7-2 for new york under the ground of preventing uprising of government. Q: what was this case’s significance A: First freedom of speech case that the ACLU argued, and overturning Barron v. Baltimore saying that the constitution. What is a good way to remember it? ill try to think of one
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka This was during the time of the cold war The big deal was that this was a huge step for the civil rights movement, by desegregating schools, which this case did, also decided unanimously It overstepped the previous plessy v ferguson trial the huge question was whether the segregated schooling was considered constitutional, as in plessy v ferguson it was considered constitutional, but they overturned it It meant the end of segregation by declaring it unconstitutional I would agree with the unanimous supreme court ruling. Even though the previous ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was ruled that racial segregation was constitutional based on the “separate but equal clause” However, this clause is proving to be a detriment to african children, and not providing an equal education. With that being said It is apparent that equal education is not being provided, so naturally one must abolish such a process that does not provide an equal education. Another big deal with this is the equal protection statement of the 14th amendment, which was also argued, wasn’t being upheld with the constant lynching of african americans. The significance of this case is that it went back on Plessy v. Ferguson What era was this? The cold war era. What was the decision? Unanimously
Background: The case was argued on March 3rd, 1971. The petitioner was Alton Lemon,and he was arguing that the recent legislature that funded classes that taught religious lessons and did things affiliated with religion, in non-public schools. He brought the case against the superintendent of the schools at that time David Kurtzman.
The case was decided on June 28th, 1971, it was an almost unanimous vote with an 8-1 in favor of Lemon. They decided that the funding did violate the implied separation of state and church.
It's significance is in not letting the government fund religiously theme programs, or other religious things.
Background: Police entered the apartment of John Lawrence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. Upon entering the apartment, they found Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, being sexually intimate. The two were then convicted of deviate sexual intercourse on ground of having violated a Texas statute that forbade two people of the same sex from engaging in sexual intercourse. The state court held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Question: Do the criminal convictions of Lawrence and Garner violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws in comparison to different-sex couples having the same sexual intimacy?
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Texas statute making same-sex intercourse a crime did violate the Due Process Clause.
Significance: Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justice Kennedy said, "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government." The lack of legitimacy for the state's interest makes the government have no business in the personal and private life of an individual.
Reno v. ACLU - Extra Credit
Background: Congress passed provisions in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to protect minors from "indecent" or offensive material on the Internet. Many groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the constitutionality of these provisions in federal court under the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment. After a lower federal court ruled that the provisions violated the First Amendment, the government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Question: Are the two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 constitutional?
Decision: The Supreme Court held that the two provisions violated the First Amendment in a 7-2 ruling.
Significance: The government cannot silence adults' rights to freedom of speech to protect minors from obscene material and they can't regulate the entire internet.
Background: Two native americans where fired from there jobs as counselors for a drug rehabilitation organization because they used an illeagal drug. They applied for unemployment compensation and where denied.
Question: Can unemployment benefits be denied to a worker fired for religous use of illegal drugs?
Ruling: 6-3 Yes,religious beliefs do not excuse someone from an otherwise valid law.
Miranda v. Arizona – Autumn Elliott
ReplyDeleteBackground: There were four Defendants. Ernesto Miranda was the first Defendant who was an immigrant. Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. The officers didn’t read him his rights, he then signed a paper stating he was read his rights.
Questions: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Decisions: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution couldn’t introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to inform Miranda of his right of an attorney and against self-incrimination.
Significance: There was no evidence that any defendant was notified of their 5th Amendment constitutional right. The U.S Supreme Court consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogation.
United States v Windsor – Autumn Elliott – Extra Credit
Background: In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act, states that for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Some states have same-sex marriage. Windsor is a widow. In 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
Questions: Does the executive branch’s agreement with the lower court that the act is unconstitutional deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case?
Does the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives have standing in the case?
Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?
Decisions: The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Significance: The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couple the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage which is available to other couples with legal marriages
Furman v. Georgia
ReplyDeleteBackground: William Henry Furman was robbing a house when a resident of the home caught him. Furman tried running, but he tripped and fell. His gun went off when he fell and killed the resident of the home. William was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Question: Does the imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 16th amendment?
Decision: The death penalty was found to be unconstitutional for unintentional murder.
Significance: The case didn't completely abolish the death penalty, but it placed less flexible requirements on death penalty statutes.
Tinker v Des Moines:
ReplyDeleteStudents freedom of speech and symbolic speech rights in school was addressed in this case. Iowa students wore black armband to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The parents sued the school for violating the first amendment. They lost in both the US district court and the court of appeals. On February in 1969, the US Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of the students quoting, "Students don't shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates."
Mapp V Ohio:
ReplyDeletePolice forced their way into Mapp's house with no search warrant in 1961. They thought she was holding a bombing suspect. While searching her house, they found no suspect, but a trunk of obscene photos. Mapp was arrested for the photos. Mapp appealed and said her fourth amendment rights were violated. The US Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of Mapp saying the evidence was seized unlawfully, and therefore, could not be used in criminal prosecutions. This case forced states to enforce protection against unreasonable search and seizures.
Barron V. Baltimore
ReplyDeleteBackground: John Barron sued the city of Baltimore for dumping sand in and around the Wharf he owned, ruining his business. He won his case for $4,500 in damages, but the federal court reversed the decision, bringing the case to the Supreme Court.
Question: Does the 5th amendment restrict the power of the state government as well as the nation?
Decision: No, the nation is the only one restricted by the Bill of Rights.
Significance: The Supreme Court established that the Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the nation, giving the states more implied freedom.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
ReplyDeleteBackground: 3 Amish children were prosecuted under Wisconsin's Compulsory School Attendance Law that requires all children to attend public school until the age of 16. The parents refused to send their children to school after the eighth grade due to religious preferences.
Question: Does this violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of the parents?
Decision: It was unanimous, and it upheld the First Amendment.
Significance: Parent's fundamental right to the freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating its children.
Gideon v. Wainwright
ReplyDeleteBackground: Gideon was charged in Florida with a felony. He went to court without a lawyer, and was denied one of his request. He represented himself and was found guilty. He filed a habeas corpus in Florida Supreme Court, but it was denied.
Question: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a criminal case extend to felony defendants in state courts?
Decision: 9-0 Majority in favor of Gideon. The amendment was upheld.
Significance: Requires states to appoint attorneys to those who can not get one.
Lawrence v. Texas
ReplyDeleteBackground:
When the police were called to, and entered a private residence (John Lawrence’s apartment) because of a report of a supposed “weapons disturbance”, they found Lawrence with another man (Tyron Garner, whom was an adult) intimately related to one another. They were then promptly arrested convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse” because they were violating in of a Texas statute which forbids two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
Question:
Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision:
6–3 Decision in the favor of Lawrence DECISION FOR LAWRENCE
Significance:
It basically showed that the government has no business in our private lives because it has no interest for the state. Justice Kennedy explained this in the majority opinion: "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,"
Extra Credit-
DeletePlanned Parenthood v. Casey
Background:
In 1988 and 1989 Pensylvania changed its abortion control law to require informed consent, a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure, the consent of one parent (if a minor), and you would have to indicate that you notified your husband of her intention to abort her fetus (if married) These changes were challenged by many abortion clinics and physicians.
Questions:
Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?
Decision:
5-to-4 decision for Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
Significance:
This reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade made it illegal to make an "undue burden," (“substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability”) which allows women more ability to get an abortion if she chooses. However, the only “undue burden” found was the husband notification. This means that you still need your parent’s permission (if you are a minor), informed consent, and a 24 hour waiting period.
McCulloch v. Maryland
ReplyDeleteBackground: Petitioner was McCulloch while the Respondent was the state of Maryland. The case was decided on March 6, 1819, but argued nine different dates beginning on February 22, 1819. In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax which led the case to end up in the Supreme Court
Important Questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Decision: The court unanimously held in favor of McCulloch and that Congress did have the right to incorporate the bank, but Maryland did not have the right to tax the bank because it was an instrument of the national government according to the constitution. Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Congress has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to charter the second Bank of the United States
Significance: The United States government had implied powers as well as those specifically listed in the Constitution. The decision provided the pathway for the federal government to expand and evolve through time.
Reynolds v. United States
ReplyDeleteBackground: In the year of 1878, the case of George Reynolds was brought to the Supreme Court. Reynolds had his first wife, Mary Ann Tuddenham, but then married a second wife, Amelia Jane Schofield, while his first was still present. Law had prevented acts such as this from happening, saying they would be guilty of biamy and could be fined up to $500 or imprisoned for up to five years. Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which Reynolds used to argue that his religion required him to have multiple wives.
Questions: How far does freedom of religion go? Does the anti-bigamy law violate the first amendment because some religions practice multiple marriages?
Decision: The ruling was unanimous that the anti-bigamy law did not violate the First Amendment.
Significance: The court decided that people cannot exclude themselves from laws because of their religion.
Marbury v. Madison: 1803
ReplyDeleteBackground Info: Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election. John Adams, the previous president, in his last moments in office appointed 58 members from his party into the court system (Midnight Judges). But before John Marshall, the Secretary of State, could deliver the commissions for all these jobs the new Secretary of State, James Madison, took over. 17 people did not get their commissions yet when Madison took over. James Madison was commanded by the President not to finish commissioning them because he wanted people of his own party to be in power. One of the people who did not get their job was William Marbury who was promised by Adams he would be the Justice of Peace for the District of Columbia. Marbury sued Madison on the claim that the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus for Madison to commission Marbury with the Judiciary Act of 1789
Important questions:
• Should Marbury be appointed?
• Dose the Supreme Court have the right to demand Marbury be commissioned?
Decision: The Supreme Court voted 4-0. Four votes for Madison and 0 votes against. The Supreme Court ruled the Judiciary Act of 1798, which would have granted the Supreme Court the right to issue a writ of mandamus, unconstitutional. Therefore, even though Marbury deserved to be appointed the Supreme Court could not force him to be commissioned.
Significance: This case is a classic case because it establishes the power for the Judicial Branch to exercise judicial review: deciding whether or not acts of Congress are constitutional. In this case the Judiciary Act of 1803 was declared unconstitutional. This affects most if not all future cases and has been argued to be one of the most important cases in History. Did I mention Judicial Review, well if not let me say it again? The case is significant because it established JUDICIAL REVIEW!!!
Recap: Marbury v. Madison: 1803 with a decision vote of 4-0 establishes Judicial Review
Gibbons vs Ogden
ReplyDelete(1824-1826)
Background- New York State law gave citizens the right to operate steamboats on waters within their jurisdiction. Other states had made a law similar to this one, which caused conflict. Thomas Gibbons was a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey with his federal coastal liscense. After New York tried to charge Gibbons for his boat privileges he challenged the monopoly liscense given to Aaron Ogden by New York.
Question- Did New York exercise authority in a realm reserved only to Congress, mostly the regulation of interstate commerce?
Decision- Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. Court held that commerce is more than traffic. It's the trade of commodities.
Significance- It takes Conress's power to regulate interstate Commerce.
Griswold vs Connecticut
ReplyDelete(1962-1965)
Background- Griswold and the medical director of a planned parenthood league were arrested for violating a Connecticut Comstock law, a law prohibiting someone from using a drug, medical advice, and any medical instrument to prevent conception. These two gave their patients instructions and medical advice cerning different types of birth control and prevention of conception.
Question- Does the U.S Constitution protect marital privacy against state restrictions on couples choice of being counseled on how to prevent conception?
Decision- Supreme Court found this law, 7-2 vote, to violate the right to marital privacy. With the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments combined it creates the right to marital privacy.
Significance- Married couples now have their own privacy under the constitution.
Schenck v. United States (1919): Charles Schenck a socialist wanted to protest the draft for men to fight in World War I. He attempted to give out thousands of flyers to American servicemen who had been drafted. He seen the draft as a form of slavery and wanted his voice to be heard. He thought that this would be covered under the first amendment. But, the government charged him with violating Espionage Act. The government argued that Schenck was trying to "to cause insubordination ... in the military and naval forces of the United States." He was found guilty on all charges, the Supreme Court reviewed Schenck’s conviction appeal. They ended up siding with the US Government finding that schenck created a clear and present danger to the public during wartime.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: The main question that was brought up about this case was: How far does the First Amendment right protect us? Where is the line drawn for what we can/cannot say?
Decision: The decision as you know went with the US Government. They found that Schenck encouraging the drafted soldiers to fight it he was putting the country in clear and present danger during war time.
Significance: The significance is really important in this case. We as Americans have to know how far we can use our First Amendment right. We have to know where that line stops, so we do not violate any laws.
Extra Credit:
DeleteUnited States v. Nixon: June 1972, five men in the Democratic National Committees offices in the Watergate complex were found with cameras and bugging equipment they were all arrested. Come to find out they worked with the Committee to re-elect President Nixon. It was discovered that Nixon had a taping system that recording all of his conversations. He believed that it was executive privilege for him not to release the tapes but, the US Government fought him on that claiming that executive privilege may not be invoked to deny the courts access to evidence needed in a criminal proceeding. The United States won this case unanimously.
Question: Does separation of powers give the president the right to uphold information from the other branches.
Decision: The courts sided with the US Government meaning that Nixon had to release the tapes.
Significance: This case is very famous and important. Everyone knows about the Watergate scandal and the ruling shows that one branch cannot shut the others out. Which is good because that means it has less of a chance to be corrupt.
Texas v. Johnson
ReplyDeleteBackground:
Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested in 1984 for breaking a Texas State law of burning the American flag. Johnson said he was protected and had rights to do that because of the First Amendment.
Questions:
What does freedom of speech mean?
How far is too far?
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Johnson's favor, stating that his actions are protected under the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.
Significance:
Invalidated ban of desecrating the American flag in 48 out of 50 states.
Texas v. Johnson
ReplyDeleteBackground:
Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested in 1984 for breaking a Texas State law of burning the American flag. Johnson said he was protected and had rights to do that because of the First Amendment.
Questions:
What does freedom of speech mean?
How far is too far?
Decision:
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Johnson's favor, stating that his actions are protected under the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.
Significance:
Invalidated ban of desecrating the American flag in 48 out of 50 states.
Extra credit
ReplyDeleteAdarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
Background:
Conflict arose in 1989 when 2 construction companies: Adarand construction and Gonzalez construction, were biding to build guard rails along a Colorado Highway. The Department of Transportation (DOP) had just classified Gonzales co. as a disadvantaged company, so the job was awarded to Gonzalez. Adarand then filed suit against the DOT, more specific, against their secretary of Transportation, Frederico Peña. Adarand claimed that the incentive clause was unconstitutional.
Question:
Does the act of favored treatment, and the assumption of disadvantaged based on race alone, violate the equal protection clause in the fifth amendment?
Decision:
5-4 in the favor of Adarand.
Significance:
The government can no longer discriminate on the basis to "make up for the past" Everyone has equal chances.
Plessy v. Ferguson
ReplyDeleteBackground: This is the court case that segregated public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal." It remained this way from 1896 to 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education). Colored people and white people had different schools, bathrooms, neighborhoods, train cars, water fountains, and everything. There were signs that said "whites only" or "colored people only." Homer Plessy, who was only six-eighths caucasian, refused to move to a colored car on a Louisiana train and was arrested.
Decision: 7-1 Ferguson. Things became officially segregated.
Question: Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its train an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Significance: It is degrading to humans to treat them differently like your race makes you "superior" or "inferior" people.
(Extra Credit)
ReplyDeleteWesberry v. Sanders
Background: James Wesberry Jr. filed a lawsuit against Governor Carl Sanders of Georgia in 1963. He was protesting the state's apportionment scheme because the fifth congressional district (the one Wesberry was a member for) had a population three times the size of all the other districts. It "diluted his right to vote."
Decision: 6-3 decision for Wesberrq.
Question: Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote?
Significance: Apportionment with large population size can easily affect party majority to make one party way stronger than the other. It also drives people away from voting because they feel like their vote won't matter anymore because it's too diluted. This is where the individual vote would begin to mean almost nothing.
New York Times v. Sullivan
ReplyDeleteBackground: The New York Times ran a full-page advertisement in 1960 that criticized the police department of Montgomery, Alabama, during the civil rights movement. The advertisement did not mention anyone by name, but contained incorrect information. L. B. Sullivan, who was the supervisor of Montgomery police department, believed the advertisement was indirectly criticizing him and sued the New York Times for $50,000 for libel. The New York Times, stating that they had no knowledge that the information they published was false, appealed.
Question: Does the 1st Amendment protect the right of the press to criticize public officials?
Decision: In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, 9-0. They decided that the 1st Amendment protects the newspaper’s right to publish the advertisement because it was not made with actual malice (The New York Times claims to have had no knowledge that there was incorrect information in the ad).
Significance: The case set the precedent for the actual malice standard. This means that in libel cases, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew the statement was false and published it anyway.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Background: Allan Bakke, a 35-year old white man, applied to and was rejected from the University of California Davis Medical School twice. In an effort to increase diversity, the school reserved 16 seats in their incoming class of 100 students for minorities. Bakke claimed that his grades and test scores exceeded those of the minority students accepted both years he was rejected, and that the University was discriminating against him based on his race.
Question: Does affirmative action violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbade discrimination based on race, or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Decision: The court decided 5-4 to order the University of California to admit Bakke because the reservation of 16 seats for minorities violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, they also decided that states can constitutionally use race as a factor in college admissions because classroom diversity is a compelling state interest.
Significance: This case upheld affirmative action, but banned specific numerical quotas for diversity. Today, colleges and universities can legally seek to increase racial diversity through their admissions process by giving preference to minorities, but cannot reserve a specific number of seats in the class for minorities.
Engel v Vitale
ReplyDeleteBackgroud: 1. The case of Engel v Vitale dealt with whether praying in schools was constitutional. The Board of Regents in New York authorized a prayer in the morning of the school day. The prayer read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.” Engel, a parent of one of the children at the school with this prayer, and some other parents thought this to be unconstitutional, even though it was undenominational and voluntary. They took the issue to the state board, who said the pray6er would be allowed. Engel did not feel that was the right answer, so he and his group were not done. They took the issue to the supreme court, and it was argued upon April 3,1962.
Question: 3. The question being argued in this case was; is authorizing a nondenominational prayer in schools, a violation of the “establishment of religion” clause in the First Amendment?
Decision: 4. On June 25,1962, the Supreme Court decided that prayer in school was unconstitutional, with a 6 -1 vote for Engel. The judges stated that by giving the children the option to pray with the class every morning, they were approving religion.
Significance: 5. This case was significant because it reinforced the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. For our government, the unconstitutional ruling meant that they had to be more strict in enforcing this clause. It also gave people the absolute freedom of religion. Parents would not have to worry about their kids learning about some sort of religion they wouldn’t necessarily want their child learning. There were other cases based on the First Amendment rights such as Bethel School District #43 v Fraser. Despite the vote not being very popular among the American people, there were no amendments to overrule this Supreme Court ruling.
Wolf v Colorado - extra credit
Background: The case of Wolf v Colorado dealt with whether illegally seized evidence should be required to be excluded from trial. Wolf and two others were convicted for planning to perform criminal abortions. While on trial, Wolf objected to the evidence and claimed it would be irrelevant if he were tried separately from his colleagues, due to the Illegal Search and Seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. This case was argued on October 19, 1948.
Question: The question at hand with this case was; are states required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to dismiss illegally seized evidence from trial?
Decision: On June 27, 1949, the Supreme Court decided with a 6 – 3 vote, that according to both amendments in question, the evidence would not have to be excluded. The judges said that although this would be a great way to deter illegal search and seizure, there are other better ways to do so.
Significance: This case clarified what you could and could not do according to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Also it made it clear that there are other ways to comply with the constitution other than letting someone guilty walk free based on where the evidence came from and how to police got it. Another case based on a similar issue overruled this ruling in 1961. This case was Mapp v Ohio.
Case: Buckley v Valeo
ReplyDeleteBackground: Case was argued in 1975 over the argument that setting a limit on campaign contributions was against the first amendment. The federal election committee was created to regulate this to prevent corruption in campaigns after the watergate scandal.
Question: did the limits set on electoral expenditures by the FECA of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment?
Decision: Court ruled in favor of Buckley, saying that restricting an individual or their family's contributions is against the first amendment.
Significance: Buckley set the odds for the United States and showed that a citizen's voice is important and the core of freedom of expression isn't spending money.
Gitlow v. New York
ReplyDeleteBackground: This case was following the red scare of 1920. Leftists, as in anarchists, socialists, members of socialist parties, etc. were convicted on the basis of writings or statements.Gitlow was punished for publishing a left wing manifesto in the newspaper.
The whole big deal was that at first it was believed that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the laws that the states enforced. However, the Supreme Courts overturned this and now the Bill of Rights applies just as much to the states as it does to federal government. Gitlow’s conviction was upheld on the grounds that the government may suppress or punish speech that directly advocated violence and unlawful overthrowing of the government.
How I would decide is not based on my own beliefs, but rather the federalist papers, which say that the Constitution’s foundation is to protect the government from monarchy and anarchy. Now overthrowing the government may put it into the anarcho-syndicalist spectrum or a socialist spectrum. However, the act of violently overthrowing the government during that time would cause anarchy in that moment. That is what Benjamin Gitlow is being convicted of by publishing his manifesto,
The controversy here isn’t the Supreme Court ruling of Gitlow v. New York, but the fact that they overturned a previous ruling in which the Constitution only extended to federal law.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 upholding Gitlow's conviction.
Questions: Q: What era was this? A: Post red scare (late 1910’s early 1920’s). Q: What was the decision A: 7-2 for new york under the ground of preventing uprising of government. Q: what was this case’s significance A: First freedom of speech case that the ACLU argued, and overturning Barron v. Baltimore saying that the constitution. What is a good way to remember it? ill try to think of one
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
ReplyDeleteThis was during the time of the cold war
The big deal was that this was a huge step for the civil rights movement, by desegregating schools, which this case did, also decided unanimously
It overstepped the previous plessy v ferguson trial the huge question was whether the segregated schooling was considered constitutional, as in plessy v ferguson it was considered constitutional, but they overturned it
It meant the end of segregation by declaring it unconstitutional
I would agree with the unanimous supreme court ruling. Even though the previous ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was ruled that racial segregation was constitutional based on the “separate but equal clause” However, this clause is proving to be a detriment to african children, and not providing an equal education. With that being said It is apparent that equal education is not being provided, so naturally one must abolish such a process that does not provide an equal education. Another big deal with this is the equal protection statement of the 14th amendment, which was also argued, wasn’t being upheld with the constant lynching of african americans.
The significance of this case is that it went back on Plessy v. Ferguson
What era was this? The cold war era. What was the decision? Unanimously
Lemon v. Kurtzman
ReplyDeleteBackground: The case was argued on March 3rd, 1971. The petitioner was Alton Lemon,and he was arguing that the recent legislature that funded classes that taught religious lessons and did things affiliated with religion, in non-public schools. He brought the case against the superintendent of the schools at that time David Kurtzman.
The case was decided on June 28th, 1971, it was an almost unanimous vote with an 8-1 in favor of Lemon. They decided that the funding did violate the implied separation of state and church.
It's significance is in not letting the government fund religiously theme programs, or other religious things.
Lawrence v. Texas
ReplyDeleteBackground: Police entered the apartment of John Lawrence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. Upon entering the apartment, they found Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, being sexually intimate. The two were then convicted of deviate sexual intercourse on ground of having violated a Texas statute that forbade two people of the same sex from engaging in sexual intercourse. The state court held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Question: Do the criminal convictions of Lawrence and Garner violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws in comparison to different-sex couples having the same sexual intimacy?
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Texas statute making same-sex intercourse a crime did violate the Due Process Clause.
Significance: Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justice Kennedy said, "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government." The lack of legitimacy for the state's interest makes the government have no business in the personal and private life of an individual.
Reno v. ACLU - Extra Credit
Background: Congress passed provisions in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to protect minors from "indecent" or offensive material on the Internet. Many groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the constitutionality of these provisions in federal court under the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment. After a lower federal court ruled that the provisions violated the First Amendment, the government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Question: Are the two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 constitutional?
Decision: The Supreme Court held that the two provisions violated the First Amendment in a 7-2 ruling.
Significance: The government cannot silence adults' rights to freedom of speech to protect minors from obscene material and they can't regulate the entire internet.
Oregon v. Smith
ReplyDeleteDates: Argued Nov 6 1989 Decided Apr 17 1990
Background: Two native americans where fired from there jobs as counselors for a drug rehabilitation organization because they used an illeagal drug. They applied for unemployment compensation and where denied.
Question: Can unemployment benefits be denied to a worker fired for religous use of illegal drugs?
Ruling: 6-3
Yes,religious beliefs do not excuse someone from an otherwise valid law.